On Mourning

Yevamot (4:10) | Yehuda Gottlieb | 13 years ago

The Mishnah in Yevamot (4:10) states

A yavamah may not perform chalitzah and is not taken in through
yibum until she has waited three months, and likewise all other
women may not enter into eirusin (halachic engagement) and
nisuin (marriage) until they have waited three months (following
their previous marriage).

The reason for this decree is to ensure that a situation will not arise
in which the paternity of a child born during the second marriage will
be thrown into doubt. This is achieved by delaying the second marriage
for three months. If at the end of that period the woman shows no signs
of pregnancy, we are certain that she did not become pregnant by the
first husband. Thus, any child born afterwards is definitely the
offspring of the second husband.

In the same Mishnah, R’ Yosi is of the opinion that “all previously
married women may enter into eirusin immediately, except a widow”.
According to R’ Yosi, a widow is not permitted to enter into eirusin
straight after the death of her husband, as she must fulfil a thirty day
mourning period.

The Gemara (Yevamot 43a) outlines a number of challenges that
attempt to refute the opinion of R’ Yosi. In one of these attempted
refutations, Rava compares the mourning period of the week preceding
Tisha B’Av with the mourning period following the death of a close
relative. The kal vachomer dictates that since in a mourning period
(the week of Tisha B’Av) where the halacha is that it is forbidden
to engage in business activities, yet it is permissible to enter into
eirusin, it should logically follow that in the mourning period where
it is permitted to engage in business activities (the thirty days of
mourning for a husband) that it should be permissible to enter into
eirusin during this time.

A lengthy discussion ensues in the Gemara, but the conclusion of the
Gemara is stated by Rav Ashi (43b): “present mourning is different
from mourning about the past and communal mourning is different from
individual mourning.”Rashi explains the difference that the
aveilut during Tisha B’Av is of a public and historical nature;
therefore we are able to be more lenient in letting people do eirusin
in this time. The same cannot be said for an individual, “fresh”
aveilut where doing eirusin in this time is deemed totally
inappropriate.

However, this explanation does not address the contradiction of business
activities. Why should business activities be deemed forbidden in a
public, ‘older’ aveilut, whereas in the individual, ‘recent’ aveilut
it is permitted?

Tosfot (s.v. shani) answers this question in a practical way. They
state that the reason that business activities are forbidden in the week
preceding Tisha B’Av is precisely because it is a public and past
aveilut. If business activities were permitted, people would see a
shopkeeper going to work during this week, and feel that this shopkeeper
was not appropriately mourning for the destruction of . Tosfot focuses
on the word ‘rabbim’. The reason why Tosfot feels that eirusin is
permitted in the week before Tisha B’Av is specifically because it is
an ‘older’ aveilut. Tosfot focuses on the two aspects of the
aveilut separately - the public aspect to forbid business activities,
and the ancient aspect to allow eirusin during this time.

This explanation is problematic according to Rashi, who seems to be
saying we are lenient during the week of Tisha B’Av because of both
aspects combined (public and ancient aveilut). How then does Rashi
understand the inconsistencies of business activities during these two
times?

R’ Kornfeld (http://www.dafyomi.co.il/yevamos/insites/ye-dt-043.htm)
states%20states)
that it could be that Rashi understood the Gemara in a way similar
to that of Tosfot, that Tisha B’Av is more stringent when it comes
to doing business activities, but for a different reason than the reason
that Tosfot gives. According to Rashi, the very fact that Tisha
B’Av is not an individual aveilut requires that steps be made to help
arouse people to mourn. The Chachamim made certain enactments in order
to help people focus on the aveilut and ponder the destruction of and
not be distracted. Therefore, they prohibited things which cause people
to take their minds off of mourning, such as business activities. That
is, the actual fact that business activities are forbidden may not be a
law of aveilut at all! They did not prohibit eirusin, though, on
such days, because eirusin is a momentary act that will not detract
from one’s concentration on mourning for . Following the death of a
husband, though, since the aveilut is personal and recent, the mourner
will not become distracted from his aveilut by undertaking business
activities.